User talk:Ched/Archive 20


 * All history of my talk page from 2008 through 2011 are located on this page. This IS an archive though, so please direct any CURRENT thoughts to my CURRENT TALK PAGE HERE.  Thank you.


 * Talk archives from July 2011 through January 5, 2012

Award

 * WOW .. holy bazoinkers Batman. I don't know if I have EVER seen you give such a thing Bugs. Thank you ... I am totally at a loss for words here. — Ched :  ?  12:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Crat bar
I thought I'd ask if you would like to comment on this discussion about the crat threshold as you seemed interested in the related dicussions a short while ago. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 20:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * commented there. — Ched : ?  21:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ched. We've moved our discussion regarding the bureaucrat threshold to User talk:Hydroxonium/Requests for bureaucratship threshold and I thought you might like to comment on it. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 07:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Hydro, Looks good at first glance. I'll check it out in more detail this evening.  Cheers.  Ched (east coast USA) — Ched :  ?  15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The RfC has gone live here. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 02:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Digs
Hi. I didn't perceive any digs directed towards me. That said, the way you phrased your comment implied that bureaucrats would misuse the -sysop bit as a quasi-political tool. As that doesn't advance discussion of why or how emergency desysops should take place, I felt obliged to call you out on that. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AHHH .. OK. And I didn't mean a dig at the 'crats' either.  My thinking is this.  The crats are "local", and edit or are active here on EN, so they are going to be familiar with many of the Admins.  I think that familiarity leads people (even if unconsciously) to develop either a like or dislike (or perhaps mistrust is a better word) of some admins.  I think that subconscious "knowing" of an admin. could all to easily play a role in the decision making process of whether or not an admin's actions were causing an "emergency".  I just haven't seen many (perhaps one very questionable situation a few months back which arbcom handled involving some questionable mental stability issues) "emergencies" here on WP.  I'll try to explain there as well.  Thanks for letting me know that what I posted could be taken that way.  It's late here, and perhaps I'm not expressing myself well at the moment due to fatigue.  — Ched :  ?  07:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Closing
Re:. Thank you. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Seemed to be stuck in one of those dreaded programming loops. :) — Ched :  ?  09:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To say the least. Just a pity it wasn't closed sooner, tis one of the reasons I avoid ANI, it's easily one of the most toxic areas of the encyclopedia, everything seems worse there and if blocks aren't handed out within the first hour or so, threads almost always degenerate. I'm glad someone stepped up and shut it down :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI closure
Hi Ched!

While I registered some disagreement at the ANI, I permit myself here to thank you very sincerely for closing it.

You may wish to include some of the tail subtopics in your closed record.

Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi HW, it seemed that userbox and its braces were messing with my placement of "discussion close" ending. Best of luck in other venues with this, but perhaps it would be easier and best for all involved to just drop the stick.  Not saying you have to, just a suggestion is all.  Cheers. — Ched :  ?  09:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no plans to continue such exchanges, but as you wrote while you closed, Worm plans to write an RfC. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nels Running
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
 * Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
 * Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
 * Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

I've got mail
Hey Ched--did you email me a URL? I want to make sure it's actually from you before I click on it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * NO ... DO NOT CLICK THAT LINK. I got several emails this morning from folks and made the mistake of clicking on one of the links .. must have spammed my contact list.  Very sorry folks ... running scans now. — Ched :  ?  14:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good luck cleaning up that mess...and BTW, that was a marvelous collection of goat porn! Drmies (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't say I know much about the goats, ... but I think I figured out where it started. Was a Facebook friend rather than a WP one .. sigh .. oh well. Thanks for the info.  Cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Did someone say goat porn? By chance, I've just started an article on that subject and could use some references. Please forward to my P.O. Box, ASAP. Buster Seven   Talk  15:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ched, get active on wiki again like before. We need more than goat porn. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Should be back on a more regular basis the middle of next week. Wanna get some work into Noel's article.  — Ched :  ?  21:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you're just on a break/busy. I almost forgot about Noel, but I'll do what I can to help. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Tfd: Facepalm

 * See WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 3
 * ... Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude
 * Obviously I'm not gonna make any of this stuff this time around ..sorry, ... but hope you folks had a great time. — Ched : ?  22:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

re: Kimo Williams
Chad

Your email to me is correct as the biography of Kimo Williamswas a cut and paste from my web site. However, I also wrote the biography. Should I cut and paste from my original word document?

Kimo Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimowilliams (talk • contribs) 15:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good day to you sir. First, let me say it's an honor to meet you.  I did receive your email, and I will follow up on this.  I want to do a bit of research before I can say for sure how we should move forward here.  As you may have noted, your edits were reverted on the article .. basically because it was a cut and paste from your website.  Especially since that site stated the "all rights reserved" we can't just do a copy and paste since it would violate our copyright policies.  I want to check in with a few folks who are better versed in the area on how to proceed, but I will get back to you in the next couple days.  If you happen to have any links to other websites .. such as perhaps any interviews you've done, or news reports that document any information it would be very helpful as well.  I look forward to working and helping with this.  Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  16:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Marines
Hey Ched, thanks for the note. Yes the discussion is getting rather long on the AfD - have to feel for the poor closing admin... Youre writing skills look fine from where Im sitting. I agree the article isnt ideal in its current form. Maybe there's two solutions. If others agree, Veteran involvement with Occupy or similar could be created. An issue with this is that although its more notable, it is in a sense a less concrete topic than our current one. Maybe the best solution is to wait for a few weeks and then try to improve the existing article? I havent done so myself yet for similar reasons to your good self - there seems to be a lot of passion and energy from both sides right now, but it will almost certainly dissipate if we wait a while.

Sorry to oppose what may seem like a workable compromise. Ive been a fairly substantial contributor to our main Occupy Movement article, and there is so much interesting stuff folk want to add that much of it is having to be rejected. Discussions are currently under way to split out sections into dedicated articles. OWS seems similarly cramped. So Im hoping no one will try to force a merge. As the excellent editor DreamFocus always says, a forced merge is often an excuse for deletionists to destroy what they dont like when they cant get a delete decision. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * sounds like a plan. I'll put on my watchlist, and if push comes to shove I'll restore and move to user space somewhere (in order to keep history). — Ched :  ?  19:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

BN
Pfft; fun; that's how wars start eh? hee hee :-)

'nings  Chzz  ► 20:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel like such an idiot .. lol. — Ched : ?  20:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done

 * I'm watching his page in case he decides to verify license, but I have to admit there's a chance I'll overlook it. I'm not on as often as I'd like to be in this account. :) If you happen to see him leaving notes or questions that I can help with, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * awwww .. thank you so much MRG ... you are so da-gone sweet. :-) — Ched : ?  18:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The next line is, "...got that sand all over your feet..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all for your help with Kimo Williams. Much appreciated. Wasn't sure what the best course of action was. StarM 02:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI comment (Review of block reviews)
I was actually responding (and posing the question) to Nobody Ent. I'm sorry if the indention was not clear that I was making the reply to the OP and not you. Hasteur (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ahhh .. ok .. no problem. I know I don't always do real well at explaining what I'm thinking.  Have a good one — Ched :  ?  20:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

m²==Brains work Better==


 * Buster .. you are such a kind and decent man. there is no way I deserve such a thing .. but I do thank you.  I have some real life things to take care of here for the next day or 3 with my grandkids .. but I do promise to get back to you very soon.  All my very best my friend - have a safe and happy holiday. :) ... — Ched :  ?  16:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have 13...or is it 14. Best to you and yours.Buster Seven   Talk  22:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

baiting for wp:civil ban
hi!

You wrote: "I've seen experienced editors (including some admins) use sugar-coated condescending and baiting text to draw an (dare I say?) opponent into a "blunt" retort: and then lower that "civility" hammer."

I didn't think there was much point trying to explain this but as you so specifically described the tactic, I was just looking at this:


 * This indefinite ban:
 * Which was based on this wp:civil report:
 * Which talked about this discussion:.
 * Where Anna was answering the question raised in this edit:
 * The response was: "And what has your crackpot conspiracy theory got to do with the article? We don't give a rat's arse what you think 'may' be happening. Please don't spam this page with delusional junk."

This baited Anna into writing the first bad comment she ever wrote for which she was indefinitely banned. The article talks about a company that was note worthy 17 years ago. It is perfectly valid to use the talk page to figure out when Clean Energy Technology Inc closed shop or if it was merged etc.

Examples of AndyTheGrump's trying to bait me:
 * "What fucking part of 'not WP:RS don't you halfwits understand?)"
 * "fuck off, scumbag"
 * "moron"
 * "go fuck yourself"

How he talks about me:


 * "Please don't post ridiculous notices about 'consensus'. The fuckwits edit-warring over this article don't give a damn about such concepts - and frankly, if Wikipedia is going to tolerate such morionic POV-pushing turds, it can manage without me..."

I just ignore him but it is obvious enough this user should not be filling wp:civil reports about anyone. The mechanics seem to work exactly the way you described. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I just found this Arbitration Case. It provides this example. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * first let me say that I am truly sorry that anyone has treated you so poorly here. And I do promise to look into this and try to find a way to a better understanding
 * second .. and I am sorry that I'm not on this asap .. but it is a major holiday in my part of the world ... my grandkids have to come first for the next day or two — Ched : ?  15:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And a merry christmas to you too~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merry Christmas :)


 * I'm not bothered by the treatment, it just doesn't seem appropriate to ban anyone for being rude to him.


 * It's a classic case of "Charlie bit my finger".


 * 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I had never seen or heard of that "Charlie bit my finger" vid before. It did make me laugh ... I'm sure I'll use this link in the future.   Yes, I agree - there are some folks that go back again to the lion's cage in an attempt to poke the ones that give exactly the reaction they expect - and then complain about that very reaction. — Ched :  ?  12:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Attack page?

 * Ched, can this be construed as an attack page? IMO, calling someone a prostitute is downright nasty and uncalled for on Christmas day or just about any other day. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

GAN Noel F. Parrish
Hi,

I have reviewed your nomination as Talk:Noel F. Parrish/GA1 and put it on hold for seven days so you can respond to the problems I've noted.

Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a great Christmas

 * awwwww .. thank you so much Pesky - very much appreciated, and I wish you a most wonderful day and season as well. :) — Ched : ?  12:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry X'mas~!
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Thank you so much Dave ... I hope you have a wonderful holiday as well. — Ched : ?  12:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I would like to wish all my fellow editors a very Merry Christmas; and a most wonderful holiday season. Cheers. — Ched : ?  12:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Frohliche Weinachten und Gluckliches neues Jahr
Photo from Baden_Wurttemberg, Germany. Pumpkin Sky  talk  12:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it a white Christmas in your area? Not here, just a heavy frost. Pumpkin Sky   talk  12:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, same here. Pittsburgh and Oakdale are a bit chilly .. but not white. — Ched :  ?  13:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Parrish award
See has some but not all recipients. Making more edits too. Pumpkin Sky  talk  15:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to do with these: *Letter to Donald Weckhorst, dated 11 April 1984


 * THE N. PILOT TRAINING PROGRAM Pumpkin Sky   talk  15:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * very cool .. thanks for the links! ... hope to get back to it tonight. :) ... and thank you again for all your help PS — Ched : ?  18:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm now not so sure these add much, should we just put them in ext links? Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My guess would be that the N. Pilot one would be a good external at the Tuskegee article. The letter to Weckhorst I'd definitely keep - maybe as an external now, .. and if we continue to expand it has some good quotes and insight to how Parrish thought and acted.  That first one may actually be in the refs now .. not sure.  We did a bit more work on the article today - see what you think.  What else do we need to do? — Ched :  ?  23:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, the first is a ref from a few days ago. Added the other two to ext links, one each article. Unless you can think of something else, you should ask for a wrap up review now. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * GA CONGRATS! Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, congrats! This is an article that many wouldn't have bothered with but definitely deserves to get attention. Hope you will continue improving it. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A nice post-Christmas gift, you did it! GA added GA you know where, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you all. It's a real pleasure and a privilege to work with you folks.  I am so glad you let me be a part of it. — Ched :  ?  14:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy)
Hey Ched, I was wondering if you'd mind examining C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy) for me. I just rewrote and expanded the thing, and while I'm rather proud of the result, I feel I need a friend to tell me everything I did wrong so my soul isn't crushed. :D (And a belated Merry Christmas and early Happy New Year to ya!) — Huntster (t @ c) 11:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * VERY cool. I've put it on my watchlist, and I'll try to do something productive on it in the next couple days.  It's a topic I'll enjoy, and I always do enjoy working with you. ... beside, maybe it will get me away from some of the AC drama. :) — Ched :  ?  11:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To take you further away I suggest some music related to a comet, pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gerda - I did a search and listened for quite a bit to various selections in that genre. Very relaxing indeed.  I always did enjoy Celtic music.
 * @Huntster .. that is a VERY well written article. Did it go to DYK or anything?  I changed a thing or two .. got some clarification on the talk page - I'll see if I can find a reference for the response I got on talk as well - perhaps add that somewhere? — Ched :  ?  22:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on reaching WP:GA status on Noel F. Parrish

 * THANK YOU! Pumpkin Sky   talk  18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

By the by
Thanks for commenting on my evidence/analysis. On a related issue, your contribution to this affair surely deserves commendation, particularly in the way you promptly drew attention to the potential furore, and have acted consistently as a critical friend to MF. To me, that's a model for how we should all interact with other editors. Geometry guy 02:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * wow .. to be honest, I don't know what to say. That you would take notice of my meager efforts here leaves me feeling wordless.  I know that you are one of the "big guns" here, and I am truly flattered.  Thank you so much for your kind words GG. — Ched :  ?  02:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just came here to say exactly the same thing, which I did with a twee bit of wikilove below. It's very hard to wade through a sewer and not come out smelling of crap, but you've managed.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The qualities of an editor are defined by the quality of their edits: you've made some very good edits here, and I am pleased to see that I am far from being the only editor who has noticed. Geometry guy 23:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * thank you GG. I figure I still have tons to learn, and a long way to go - but I'll keep plugging away at it. :) — Ched :  ?  23:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Strong support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, -<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * thank you so much folks .. I honestly don't know what to say. There are just so many great folks here ... I feel honored just to be a part of such a great group of folks. — Ched :  ?  20:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support even though I don't know what's going on. I do know that you are a civil person :) — Huntster (t @ c) 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * lol .. thanks Huntster. Not really sure how I got into that huge discussion myself.  I really need to be hanging out with you at articles more I think. :) — Ched :  ?  23:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support and OOH RAH, Yea team! VERY well deserved! Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * lol .. thanks PS. :) — Ched : ?  23:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

PA
(As in "NPA".) Isn't this a bit of an overreaction? First, you refer to WP:NPA, but that's mostly about attacking one's addressee. Secondly, the writer doesn't refer to the politician as an asshole, a wife-beater, a cheat, a scumbag, a crook, a phoney, or a moron; or in the pay of Israel, "Islamofascists", or the tobacco business; or a puppet controlled by Bilderberg, the "Illuminati", Cheney, extraterrestrial reptiles, etc -- he merely calls him "abhorrent". True, this hardly indicates the dispassionate stance needed for encyclopedic writing, but it also hardly strikes me as a personal attack. (It also may be useful as an indicator that this editor isn't or can't be dispassionate.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I realize that the subject matter is quite polarizing, and that many folks have strong views on Santorum; but that does not give us leave to refer to others as "abhorrent". I could have and should have also linked to WP:BLP as well, and if you will note: I did not go and chastise the editor.  I simply removed the offending remark.  If you feel it is acceptable to refer to others as "abhorrent", then I'm not really sure what more I can say here.  If you wish to revert me and restore the original "abhorrent Mr Santorum" than I will certainly not try to remove the comment again.  I saw what I thought was an offensive personal attack on another living person, so I removed it.  I don't have any desire to fight, edit-war, or create any major drama about it though.  Feel free to revert at will - and thank you for notifying me of your objection to my actions.  cheers and best, — Ched :  ?  13:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, the number of people who abhor Santorum should be beside the point; people should have no more or less right to call him abhorrent than to call Romney or Obama abhorrent. (My guess, though, is it that isn't beside the point: consider how little worry there seems to be about what's on, say, Talk:Robert Mugabe.) What does it mean to say that somebody is abhorrent? Something like "I abhor him and a lot of other people do too". If that's on the right track (and it's only my first approximation), then it doesn't seem an attack to me; rather, it's a statement of and about strong dislike. -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think for me the distinction lies in the specific way the word is used. If one says "Mr. Santorum's politics, (or statement) is abhorrent" then the adjective clarifies an intangible (his politics or his statement)  If one says that they "abhor [any person]", then they state their own personal (and subjective) feelings toward a subject.  But when a person uses the sentence structure: BLP doesn't cover this, since there is no false information about the abhorrent Mr Santorum. - then clearly (in my mind) the word "abhorrent" becomes a direct and deliberate attempt using the adjective to suggest that the person is inherently "abhorrent"  ie: loathsome - odious - detestable - abominable - loathful.  If that is not a personal attack on someone - then I'm sorry, I don't know what is.  Regardless of any political inclinations here, can you honestly draw no distinction between these things?  I may abhor Obama's political agenda.  I may abhor the impact he's had on the US.  But I can NOT say he is an abhorrent person on Wikipedia.  BLP, NPA, and CIV simply forbid that kind of thing.


 * Ya know - there's a case going on now up at arbcom regarding language and civility. And for the most part we frown on people who do call others (to use some of your own words) "asshole, a wife-beater, a cheat, a scumbag, a crook, a phoney, or a moron..." (toss in a few of the more base and crass ones there and we could really have a blast here).  But if it's going to come down to a ruling at Arbcom that we can not call people things like "c*nt, ass, c*cks*cker, etc.", but that it is perfectly fine to degrade and insult others so long as we use nice pretty words like "abhorrent, loathsome, odious, or detestable" then you set the entire site up for a class-warfare schism that many will not want any part of.  (myself included).


 * I will be glad to take a look at the Mugabe stuff tonight. — Ched : ?  14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do indeed frown on people who call others assholes, wife-beaters, etc -- and rightly so (with the minor exception, I suppose, of those people who have been convicted of beating their wives or who have confessed to having beaten them, etc etc). To say that somebody is "abhorrent" is, I'd say, very different -- and as a description of undesirability it's tolerable (though not to be encouraged) when that person not only is a public figure but is also openly participating in what is very much a popularity contest. If somebody were to refer to you as "abhorrent" on a talk page, I'd probably leave it but have word with him [yes, probably male] either there or on his talk page. If on the other hand he referred to you as an "asshole", I'd "redact" it and give him an earful; a repeat would earn him a block. &para; Well, perhaps you and I disagree on what is and isn't degrading. -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what civility blocks are all about? BLocking someone because there's disagreement about what is what? Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No it isn't what they are all about. -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. Go look at the Malleus arbcase. Pumpkin Sky   talk  03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This? Yes, I looked at it. I released my cursor here and there within it, and read the surroundings. They looked interesting and intelligent, not least among them the comments by our genial host [thank you!] Ched. I also very much like the idea of "Malleus incivility birthday bingo"; time willing, I'll try it out. But read all of that stuff? Sorry, no. "This user is not an arb and does not wish to be one." I'll wait to read the results. Unless perhaps I'm canvassed asked to read some particular part within it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will be away tomorrow ... but I will reply when I get back. — Ched : ?  05:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if you're in the mood to do so. No offense taken -- and certainly no gloating ("Wee-hee, I got the last word!") -- if you don't. There's so much else to be done. In the meantime, let me (again) reassure you that I do not intend to encourage the use of "abhorrent" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Learning
You mentioned "learning" in the edit summary for the above. I would like to expand my vocabulary and asked for a few words in their context, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Incivility Birthday Bingo: (May 9)

 * I Win!!! RfC on PBS link ... naaa .. that won't work - there were more supports for Malleus than any other section.
 * A Chinese whore from Mars .. naaa .. he was talking about himself.
 * River Don Navigation ... naaa .. that was getting an article up to GA status.
 * Richard Basset (royal justice) ... nope again - another "improve the article to GA" thing.
 * Phoronid ... drat .. another GA
 * Golondrina point awww come on now - how many Ga articles can one person do in one day?
 * talking to an admin about his RfA .. oh wait .. it's a compliment.
 * hmmmm .. well considering he was one of 63 opposes - might have to call this a wash.
 * I Win a BN discussion. hmmmm .. wait a second - let me think about this one a bit..... (meh - he disagreed with ME[1] - so I win!)

So - on this day in history, Malleus voiced the most supported view at a RfC, complimented one admin., opposed an RfA, pointed out an inconsistency at WP:BN, and took 4 articles to GA. Quite some days work I'd say. — Ched : ?  17:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * [1] I supported the SoV RfA.

For the record
Dan Savage is an internationally syndicated columnist whose work has appeared in dozens of markets for over twenty years. He has had five books published by major publishers; one of those books served as the basis for an award-winning musical. He launched the It Gets Better Project, which drew the personal participation of the President of the United States (among many, many others). He may not be 'Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, or Rupert Murdoch', but he's never claimed to be (and really, categorizing Murdoch with Murrow and Cronkite? Murdoch is not a journalist. Murdoch employs journalists). That doesn't make him less of a significant or influential figure; he's well past '15 minutes'.

I would also point out that Mr Savage's distasteful neologism says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality. DS (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct, and I apologize. I have re factored my statement. — Ched :  ?  23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)